MALICK IS BACK FILMING MOVIES WITH SCRIPTS. THIS IS NOT A DRILL

The only people I know who thing tree of life is a good movie are losers who are "going to school to get a degree in film" and stoners.

Tree of Life sucks my man.
t. stoner

I swear I am the only person who liked Song to Song. It’s just a really comfy movie to me.

Nolan needs to stop ripping off Michael Mann.

racist filtered, go back to /pol/ also u guys lost 2 WW, kek

Yes that's what my post says. It's cool I enjoy smoking a bowl before I shitpost every now and then.

Your posts literally says the opposite, my man

>Only plebs think pretty pictures and music make good cinema.
Film is a fucking visual medium. A good movie has the ability to elicit certain reactions through its visuals primarily. Otherwise you might as well be directing a play.

>Muh daddy issues
It's about Christianity, suffering, and the book of Job. Watch it again with the opening quote in mind

This is a pro-Malick board and has been since its inception. Go away.

Yeah it's really good. The best of his post-Tree of Life work

Ok let me try and make this clearer for you. I think Tree of Life is a great looking and sounding film that is way too up it's own ass to actually be a decent piece of cinema. The people who say it's a good film are aspies who for some reason think going to film school is a good idea or stoners who are incredibly high and have a hard time dealing with plot.

Did you get that faggot or do I need to draw a picture for you?

Did you completey disregard the >t. stoner in my post?

I'm not saying Malick is a bad director. I'm saying that ever since he came back with Thin Red Line his films are too obsessed with his own stylistic tics rather than being actually good movies.

I guess I"m just annoyed that he's an obviously good director who seems to be too self absorbed to actually make decent cinema.

>hitler bad

Skip it. He's worse than Tarentino

Attached: feet.jpg (704x396, 24K)

>he thinks film is just about pictures.

For fuck's sake can we have a /flm/ board already. Yea Forums is overrun with shitposters and plebs.

He doesn't follow prescriptive cinematic narrative rules, which gives people the impression that his movies are meandering and don't have plots, but I think that there's room for abstract filmmaking with an actual budget. There's value to the images he creates

Yeah, like painting and sculpture, the entire domain of its aesthetic is visual. A film primarily concerned with its narrative is literally just a play

Abstract is one thing. Prajanov is abstract and manages to make movies that aren't an absolute chore to watch.

Attached: Sayat_nova.jpg (365x273, 14K)

Fuck off and make another marvel movie thread. Stop pretending you understand cinema.

Nolan is a Malick-fag youtube.com/watch?v=UVUXDn6hCY4

Might be co
>malick wrote it
Well I'll look forward to a webm or two.

See this should tell you something about him as a director. His movies are only good as bite sized webms.

lol movies didn't even have sound for decades. It's always been regarded as a visual medium. Read some fucking film theory my man

If you don't understand that film is about overall narrative and not just pictures, you're a retard.

>read some fucking film theory

No U

Attached: 51TnX-MZ-eL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (332x499, 28K)

Look, what engages you aesthetically and communicates meaning to you thematically is ultimately subjective. My only contention is that Malick isn't just a visual filmmaker who's only concerned with form. He has actual ideas, and if you find his articulation of them boring then fine, but he's not just creating pretty images.

Cinema is about both or either. A movie whose aspirations are aesthetic is just as valid as a movie whose aspirations are narrative. A visual piece at MOMA is as valid an example of the medium as a standard movie is.

And Malick's films don't lack narrative, they just lack the Aristotelean structure of a typical plot. They still have themes and well-drawn characters.

>GERMANS IN GERMANY SPEAKING ENGLISH.
>ANTINATIONALSOCIALISTIC, PROZIONISTIC, DRIVEL.

THE «MOVIES» BY TERRACE MALICK CONSTITUTE THE EPITOME OF DEMIOURGISTIC CINEMA, AND THIS «MOVIE» IN PARTICULAR SEEMS TO BE A PARAGON OF DISHONEST CINEMA.

Attached: LITTLE ANNY.jpg (1506x1020, 265K)

Malick speaks German too. He did academic translations of major philosophical works, and actually met and worked with Heidegger

DO YOU HAVE A «POINT»?

Attached: ANGL FRWN.png (650x575, 1.43M)

Yes you fucking retard. That he obviously chose to film the movie in English for budgetary reasons, not because he doesn't speak German or have any sort of grasp of German culture.

1. YOU ANSWER AS IF YOUR «POINT» WERE OBVIOUS FROM YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSE.

2. YOUR «POINT» IS A NONSEQUITUR.

3. THE RATIONALE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE STATVS OF THE FINAL PRODUCT.

4. YOU SEEM TO BE WILLFULLY NEGLECTING MY SECOND OBJECTION, WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT: THE FACT THAT IT IS ANTINATIONALSOCIALISTIC, PROZIONISTIC, DRIVEL —DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION REGARDING THAT?

His first two films before his break are a must watch

Attached: Days.of.Heaven.1978.1080p.Criterion.Bluray.DTS.x264-GCJM 01.10.10-01.10.39.webm (852x480, 2.99M)

1. It was implied. If you had a higher IQ you'd be able to tell.

2. I wasn't trying to suggest that his choice to film the movie in English was necessarily good, I was just pointing out that the decision wasn't made because he's just an ignorant American caricaturing Germany under Nazi rule in order to draw some cheap parallel to Trump. Malick lived and worked in Germany; he grasps the culture and isn't a total outsider.

3. Sure, I agree

4. Nothing in the trailer suggests that it's pro-zionist. It is anti-Nazi, but it should be. Nazis were terrible both for Jews and whites. Anti-colonial ideology is a direct response to Nazism.

Overdirected trash. Camerawork should be more subtle.

Only if you believe in narrative realism, which is a completely overdone aesthetic movement. It's okay to make something beautiful for its own sake. Malick is a classicist in that sense

>4. Nothing in the trailer suggests that it's pro-zionist. It is anti-Nazi, but it should be. Nazis were terrible both for Jews and whites. Anti-colonial ideology is a direct response to Nazism.

YOU ARE IGNORANT AND CONFUSED.

Could you keep your voice down please?

It's fine to make some pretty pictures for just showing from time to time but not the entire movie. Looking at this i can't get into the narrative at all because it's just one step ahead of being gopro footage.

looks beautiful but kinda hacky

>gopro footage
Nah dude, these images are deliberated over. They're technically very well-done, and not easy to replicate.

>Looking at this i can't get into the narrative at al
That's fine dude. A lot of people feel that way about non-naturalistic and formally subtle art. It's why people hate opera and ballet. But that doesn't make his movies "overdirected," that just means that they aren't for everyone

but do we find out where god lives?

Look too emotionally authentic for the quip and "muh realism" generation. It's not gonna do well, but patricians will like it.

Cool. More nazi shit.

Attached: Baraka0039.jpg (639x277, 12K)

A thread full of posters shitting on a new Mallick flick of any kind just because nazis are in it is proof the people who used to post here don't post here anymore.

True kinosaurs will lick jewish girls feet

hidlr bad

English language film set in Austria is cringe, continuing to push anti-Nazi propaganda 80 years after the war is an acknowledgement of political weakness and ideological failure in the same way that banning politics you don't like is.